![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ремонт и я разбираю старые ксерокопии
Ronald D. Laing reviews General Psychopathology by K. Jaspers (1963):
As a philosopher, Jaspers has produced an amalgam of the work of others, mainly of Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Max Weber—in a way that Sartre has called 'soft and underhand'. As a psychopathologist, I find Jaspers even less satisfactory than Sartre finds him as a philosopher.
When I read Jaspers’ pathographies of Van Gogh, Hölderlin, and Strindberg, I thought that here was a betrayal by a philosopher of the artist and poet. Instead of a compassionate understanding of the all-too-human risks involved in the exploration of reaches of reality that transcend those that a learned pedant will ever wish to know at first hand, Jaspers is no longer with them when they go too far. Later, I have come to the opinion that Jaspers was not even in a position to betray. To betray, one must have some understanding of what one is betraying.
As a philosopher, Jaspers has produced an amalgam of the work of others, mainly of Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Max Weber—in a way that Sartre has called 'soft and underhand'. As a psychopathologist, I find Jaspers even less satisfactory than Sartre finds him as a philosopher.
When I read Jaspers’ pathographies of Van Gogh, Hölderlin, and Strindberg, I thought that here was a betrayal by a philosopher of the artist and poet. Instead of a compassionate understanding of the all-too-human risks involved in the exploration of reaches of reality that transcend those that a learned pedant will ever wish to know at first hand, Jaspers is no longer with them when they go too far. Later, I have come to the opinion that Jaspers was not even in a position to betray. To betray, one must have some understanding of what one is betraying.